AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Lynch's Iine is far more consistent with tne break in s�ope that marks the boundary between�$�A. - Page 247 and the surraunding land. T think this is pretty clear. In fact, I don't understand how Mr. Chang could rationalize or justify accepting the applicant's TOB for the stormwater setback, except ta succumb to political pressure. We also know that just a couple of mont�s prior, as documented in the recard, Mr. Chang ordered Impact Sciences, the consultant wriring the Initial Study for the project, to change their findings of significant impacts and remove associated mitigations that Mr. McGowan did not want fo perform, in order for the project to move forward to the Commission without an EIR. The net�ot sizes listed in Table 2 of the staff report axe based on the app�icant's TOB location used for�efining the setback, not the City Engineer's. So here's#he kicker: based fln what we can pul� together, if you recomputed net Iot area{building site area) using Mr. Lynch's liz�e, it looks]zke you migh#drop below 54,000 square feet or sufficient building site area to support nine homes. If you thought the creek TOB battle was about �he Stormwater�rdinance, think again—its' about cobbling together enough lana to fit 9 iots onto this property. In our DEIR comments, we asked the City to xequire a fiill survey of the creek and topographic conditions around the site, azxd fii2Iy relate the Zocation of the creek to knawn benchmarks that can be verified on the VTM. A topographic survey extending Z00' beyond the project site is a requirernent of Redwood City Code 30.35H1. The City has not responded to that request. A concern we've voiced is whether the creek itself is located accurately within the Iot lines. You can read the record on this question as some things don't make sense. A valid, abjectively defined rnap of the creeic channel is essential to ge�t.�is right. To approve this project as designed, you therefore have to approve construction of a substandard road, and pretend ti�at the creek channel top Iies below the �00-year flood surface, which itse�f has been determined by FEMA to occnr within tk�e CordiZleras Creek channel at this �ocation—and it still barely makes it under the line. This makes no sense. Yet Mr. McGowan {and staff as his surrogate at this point) want to convince you that such approval ts warrantea and necessary to preserve the developer's substantial property rights, That is one of the findings you are asked to make to approve this PD. You cannot make this finding because he does nat have this right. In its Feb.10, 2009 staff report to the Commission, Staff advised you that you could not make the fiz�dings to grant the roadway exceptian. Notl�ing has changed. The road is e�sentially the same, the site isn't any more awkward than it was, and Mr. McGowan hasn't obtained any additional rights. Furthermore, alternatives evaluated in the ETR show that the site can be developed without requiring a.substandard roaa. �taffls evaluation in 2009 was correct, anc�tl�ere is no basis in fa.ct to change those findings. With aIl due respect to the staff report, you can't just make�his stuff up without substantial evidence to support your conclusions. You also have to approve a PD Pern�.it that finds that the de�elopment is in harmony with the surraunc�ing neighborhood and meets the objectives of a Planned Development. You can't malce those findings either. I want to also rnake sure to mention that one of our ne�uv General Plan Policies for Historic Influence Low Density Residential Neighborhaods (I'olicy BE 5.1} states the following: "Require that new construction, additions, renavations, and infill deve�opment be sensitive to neighborhood coratext, historic development patterns, and building form and scale {for example, second stories, detached garages, setbacks, enhanced front entrances}" [Emphasis added]. This project is hardly sensitive to the neighborhood con�ext; that is c2ear in the visualizations we've provided. The difficulty Mx. McGowan has had in getting a project built here has been his insistence on stuffing 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5-pound sack. This is obviaus when you look at t.he project design and study the Iong and tortuous path of this project. We know a sensitive and sensible project cau be built here and we want to work with the City and Mr. McGowan to make it happen. We've identified feati,�res of a project that we would support. We've presented an alternativ�PD concept that puts nine dwelling units on the site(8 Iots),provides a 3